Civil Revision Petition dismissed. The Court held that an appeal under Order XXXIII Rule 1(d) of CPC is maintainable only against an order rejecting an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. Consequently, this Court found no warrant for interference as the appeal below was correctly held not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1153 OF 2013
Dated: 08.08.2013
Between: Smt. K.Rani Prasanna … Petitioner And P.Murthy
… Respondent
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1153 OF 2013
ORDER:
The respondent herein who is the defendant in O.S. No.1186 of 2009 on the file of the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was set ex parte and consequently the suit filed by the revision petitioner herein/plaintiff was decreed ex parte. Thereafter the respondent filed I.A. No.219 of 2011 under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree and the same was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 03.11.2011 subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- and getting ready for trial without taking any adjournment. Aggrieved by the same the revision petitioner preferred C.M.A. No.145 of 2011 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed by the order dated 14.12.2012 holding that the appeal is not maintainable under Order XXXXIII Rule 1(d) of C.P.C. Accordingly, the lower appellate Court directed to return the papers to enable the appellant to do the needful in the matter.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the Court below has rightly held that the appeal is not maintainable since Order XXXXIII Rule 1(d) of C.P.C provides for an appeal only against the order rejecting an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision petition shall stand closed.
____________ G.ROHINI, J
Date: 08.08.2013
MVA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Court should interfere with the dismissal of a Criminal Appeal filed against the allowance of an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.
Whether an appeal lies against an order allowing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.
Smt. K.Rani Prasanna
P.Murthy
G.ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
